systems engineering 6 april 2004 sj kapurch peo systems engineering code d oce hq

Systems Engineering6 April 2004

SJ KAPURCHPEO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

CODE D OCE HQ

Provide snapshot of state of Systems Engineering

NASA DOD Industry

Purpose

Outline

Background Overview SE NIAT SE Framework SE trends

DoD Industry

Summary

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Inspector General (W)

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

NASA Advisory Council

Chief Financial Officer (B)

Equal OpportunityPrograms (E)

AA

Legislative Affairs (L)AA

External Relations (I) AA

Human Resources (F)AA

Public Affairs (P)AA

Security Management and

Safeguards (X)AA

Small & Disadvantaged

Business Utilization (K) AA

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

Institutional & Corporate

Management (O)AA

Safety and Mission Assurance (Q)

AA

Biological and Physical Research

(U) AA

Space Flight (M)AA

• Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

• John F. Kennedy Space Center• George C. Marshall

Space Flight Center• John C. Stennis Space Center

Earth Science (Y)AA

• Goddard Space Flight Center

Space Science (S)AA

• Jet Propulsion Laboratory *

* JPL is a contractor-operated facility.

• Ames Research Center

• Dryden Flight Research Center

• Langley Research Center

• John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field

Aeronautics (R)AA

Education (N)AA

Procurement (H)AA

General Counsel (G)Chief Engineer (D)

Chief Information Officer (V)

Health and MedicalSystems (Z)

Chief Health and Medical Officer

ExplorationSystems (T)

AA

Outline

Background NIAT

NASA SE Framework SE trends

DoD Industry

Summary

NASA Implementing Strategies

*Derived from the NASA FY2003 Strategic Plan, p. A-3

IS-3. Enhance NASA’s core engineering, management, and scientific capabilities and processes to ensure safety and mission success, increase performance, and reduce cost.

Implement collaborative engineering

capabilities and integrated design

solutions to reduce the life-cycle cost

and technical, cost, and schedule risk of major programs

Apply methods and technologies to ensure that designs are safe

and have a high likelihood for success

Improve our systems engineering

capability and ensure that all NASA

programs follow systems engineering

best practices throughout their life

cycles

Establish a process management

approach that can be tailored to the needs of all projects and programs based on

safety, scope, complexity, cost, and

acceptable risk

Use peer review to ensure that NASA’s scientific research is of the highest quality

Vision

Mission

Agency GoalsWhat we will achieveWhat we will achieve

ThemesOur structure to implement the GoalsOur structure to implement the Goals

ObjectivesHow we will achieve the GoalsHow we will achieve the Goals

Implementing StrategiesA foundation of sound planning and management

practices

NIAT Report

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE Formed to address Response to MARS, Shuttle

wiring, FBC and Other Mishap reports NASA WIDE SENIOR TEAM

Chaired OCE Program specific Root Cause and systemic NASA

issues Reviewed 165 recommendations

• 5 groups “Integrated System Solution”

Results many other FRB’s NIAT

NASA Integrated Action Team Report

Highlighted improvement efforts needed in the engineering workforce and engineering practice:- NIAT Theme I – Workforce - “The success of NASA depends on having

a knowledgeable and skilled workforce, armed with the right tools and supported by clearly understood processes and methodologies. … To respond to this need, NASA is initiating a focuses revitalization of its engineering capability with emphasis on systems engineering, through accelerated training, improved Agency-wide standards and the development of improved tools and methodologies.”- NIAT-3: Revitalizing Engineering Capability: “A third ingredient in

the assessment of the engineering capability is consistency in process and execution. … as we strive for greater integration, consistency and sharing of expertise among NASA Centers, industry and academia in collaborative environments, it appears that the Agency could benefit from appropriate Agency-wide standards in the systems engineering process.”

- NIAT Theme IV – Rigor and Discipline - “… to enable excellence in project management, excellence in engineering practice is a pre-requisite.

Engineering Excellence Initiative

Initiated in response to NIAT to stimulate and enable the development and advancement of a sound engineering capability.

• Vision: A premier systems engineering capability widely recognized for its leadership and expertise in the engineering of systems and subsystems to enable NASA to provide leading edge aerospace research, products and services

• Mission: Develop and implement the framework, and promote the environment for excellence and the revolutionary advancement of the system engineering capability to anticipate and meet the needs of NASA Programs and Projects.

• Goal: Stimulate and enable the development and advancement for success in fulfilling the challenging and ambitious goals of the NASA Strategic Plan.

Agency-wide framework does not exist to guide:

• The production and oversight of aerospace products and capabilities from a technical/systems engineering perspective

• Capability assessments as a basis for continuous measurable improvement

• Professional development

Problem Statement

Challenges

Systems engineering issues in programs have contributed to failures, schedule delays, and cost overruns.

Systems issues have resulted in findings in several reports. The exponential growth in technical complexity, and

resulting potential technical risk is expected to continue, challenging our ability to engineer systems effectively.

Centers technical policy has evolved independently Creating separate vocabularies, processes and

inconsistencies

SEWG CHARTER

The SEWG:

Is chartered ( by EMC), in support of Strategic Plan to develop and document a common framework for systems engineering in NASA

TERMS of REFERENCE

The The LicenseLicense. . .. . .

“… This Framework will describe the requirements for SE processes required to engineer aerospace products and capabilities …”

Need: Consistency in basic approach to systems engineering

Need: Common framework of recognized best practices that guides the systems engineering of aerospace program and project products and capabilities.

Need: Common systems engineering terminology and definitions to enhance communication and collaboration among engineering teams across the Agency and with external partners and customers.

Need: Basis for assessing and continuously improving systems engineering capabilities.

Specific Needs

Expectations

The NASA SEWG represents the interests of the Agency, and not the parochial interests of a particular Center

Commitment to a product that we can be proud of Openness and honesty Willingness to take an introspective look at the

present state and dare to push the envelope for what it could be

Leadership within the SEWG and at the Centers for the vision to become reality

No attribution or retribution for the sharing of ideas

Enable and foster excellence in systems engineering capabilities to:

Formulate feasible program and project concepts. Deliver required products and services to NASA customers. Make timely acquisition of enabling products and critical technologies. Reduce risk in system development and deployment.

Enable more effective communications and collaboration within NASA and with external partners and customers.

Conduct effective assessment and improvement of systems engineering capabilities.

Develop strategic focus for advanced engineering environments.

Change the culture to represent the needs of one NASA, and not the unique needs of a particular Center.

Expected Benefits

Outline

Background NIAT


DoD Industry

Summary

Engineering ExcellenceFramework for the Engineering of NASA

Systems Experienced, well trained engineers in

application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction

Consistency in systems engineering

approach at all levels

Advanced tools and methods to

achieve greater efficiency,

and effectiveness in systems

engineering

Continuous improvement

through self assessment at the

personal and organizational

level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce

Concepts and Processes

Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility


Systems Consistency in systems engineering


Experienced, well trained engineers in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction




engineering




level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce


Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility

Basic SE Process

RequirementsAnalysis

INPUTSINPUTS

FunctionalAnalysis/Allocation

DesignSynthesis

Analysis &ControlVerificationVerification

LoopLoop

RequirementsRequirementsLoopLoop

DesignDesignLoopLoop

OUTPUTSOUTPUTS

Systems Engineering “V”

Design E

ngineer

Define UserNeeds

Define UserNeeds

Define SystemRequirements

Define SystemRequirements

Allocate SystemFunctions toSubsystems

Allocate SystemFunctions toSubsystems

Detail Designof Components

Detail Designof Components

VerifyComponents

VerifyComponents

Verification ofSubsystems

Verification ofSubsystems

SystemPerformanceVerification

SystemPerformanceVerification

SystemOperationalVerification

SystemOperationalVerification

Deco

mp

ositio

n &

Defin

ition

Inte

gra

tio

n &

Ver

ific

atio

n

System

Engineer

SE Process - Lifecycle

IOC

ConceptRefinement

System Development& Demonstration

Production &Deployment

Operations &Support

FRP DecisionReview

FOC

LRIP/IOT&EDesign

ReadinessReview

TechnologyDevelopment

Initiation)

ConceptDecision

-

ConceptRefinement

System Development& Demonstration

Production &Deployment

Operations &Support

TechnologyDevelopment

Formulation Implementation

System Engineering- Decomposition and Definition

System Engineering Process

Model for Concepts and Processes

7120.4

7120.5NPG for NPG for SystemsSystems

EngineeringEngineering

NASA Body of Knowledge for

Systems Engineering

CenterDirectives

Center Guidefor Systems Engineering

Policy

The NPR is a high level NASA Policy The NPR is a high level NASA Policy document to support Program and document to support Program and Project Management. Project Management. Process orientedProcess oriented

““What to do” vice “how to”What to do” vice “how to” Technical input Technical input Flowdown to center directivesFlowdown to center directives

TailoringTailoring

Useable Agency wide. Allow flexibility to innovate and be tailored to unique project

needs while retaining adequate rigor and traceability. Establish links between Systems Engineering Framework

and existing NASA Policy (e.g. NPG 7120.5/Program Management) and requirements to ensure compatibility and consistency.

Don’t start from scratch: Select appropriate concepts and processes from established national and

international standards on systems engineering. Incorporate Center internal best practices where suitable for use Agency-

wide. Utilize publicly available and accepted assessment models to establish tools

for self assessment of capability consistent framework

Rules of Engagement

Purpose SE Related StandardsPurpose SE Related Standards

Mil-Std-499B (NOT PUBLISHED) This standard assists in defining, performing, managing, and evaluating systems

engineering efforts in defense system acquisitions and technology developments. EIA IS 632

This standard is for use by organizations accomplishing new system development, upgrades, modifications, technical efforts conducted to prepare responses to solicitations, and resolution of problems in fielded systems.

IEEE 1220 To provide a standard for managing a system from initial concept through

development, operations, and disposal.EIA/ANSI 632

This standard provides an integrated set of fundamental processes to aid a developer in the engineering or re-engineering of a system.

ISO/IEC 15288 To establish a common framework for describing the life cycle of systems created

by humans.

EIA IS 731 (assessment STD)

This Interim Standard supports the development and improvement of systems engineering capability. It provides both an appraisal model and an appraisal methodology.

ANSI/EIA 632

Heritage of Standards for Systems Engineering

EIA / IS 632

ISO/IEC 15288

Mil-Std-499BMil-Std-

499A

1994

1994

1994

1998

2002

1974

(Not Released)Mil-Std-499

1969

(Trial Use)IEEE 1220

1998

(Full Std)

LegendLegendSupersedesSource for

1998

EIA/IS 731 SE CM

EIA/IS 731 SE CM

IEEE 1220

(Full Std)(Interim Standard)

2002

CMMIsm SE/SW/IPPD

CMMIsm SE/SW/IPPD

(Interim Standard)

(FDIS)

(Version 1.1)

ISO/IEC 19760

2003

(PDTR)

2002

ISO/IEC 15504

ISO/IEC 15504

(FDIS)

NPR Structure

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables Preface P.1 PurposeP.2 Applicability and ScopeP.3 AuthorityP.4 ReferencesP.5 Cancellation CHAPTER 1. Overview 1.1 Introduction1.2 Framework1.3 Key Attributes1.4 Document Structure1.5 Force of Requirements

CHAPTER 2. NASA Systems Engineering 2.1 Systems Engineering Relationships

and Characteristics2.2 Systems Engineering Definitions2.3 Key Concepts2.4 Systems Life Cycle Model CHAPTER 3. Systems Engineering Processes 3.1 Definition Process3.2 Design Process3.3 Realization Process3.4 Technical Management Process3.5 Technical Evaluation Process








engineering




level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce


Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility

Workforce

Key is well trained workforce Multi-tier approach

NET Crossman study

Emphasis is on Systems Approach Vice all Systems Engineers

Every System Exists In The Context of a Broader System

A System is a A System is a set of set of interrelated interrelated components, components, which interact which interact internally and internally and externally in externally in an organized an organized fashion fashion toward a toward a common common purposepurpose

End Product EnablingProducts


Project


Project


Project


Project


Project


Project

Subsystem Elements

Subsystem Elements

Programs

NASA Enterprise








engineering




level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce


Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility

Pre-Assessment Plan for Systems Engineering

Background

The Systems Engineering Work Group (SEWG) proposed a pre-assessment program with both a short-term and longer-term set of goals. The major short-term goal of this program is to establish

the baseline for systems engineering process improvement at NASA. This would be accomplished by the following:

Completion of pre-assessments at selected NASA Centers. Use of the pre-assessments to identify and analyze gaps in the

systems engineering processes and practices at each of the NASA centers. This information will be used by the agency and each Center to establish systems engineering process improvement goals.

Development of a trained workforce. The result of the baseline would enable achievement of

the following longer-term goals: To establish a framework for development of a process

improvement strategy for the engineering of NASA systems. To achieve an engineering culture that fully embraces an

environment of continuous improvement.

Assessments Subgroup

The SEWG chartered a subgroup to perform the necessary trades on existing capability models and make a recommendation to the Chief Engineer.

Subgroup Mission To establish a systems engineering capability

assessment methodology that enables continuous process improvements in the engineering of systems Agency-wide, with validation and documentation through implementation.

Candidate Models Evaluated ISO 15504 – The international standard assessment methodology for systems

engineering

EIA/IS 731 – An Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) standard that brings together the EPIC Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE CMM) and the INCOSE Systems Engineering Capability Assessment Model (SECAM) into a single capability model to minimize confusion within the industry and to relate the resulting capability model to the EIA-632 Standard, Processes for Engineering a System.

SE-CMM – The Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Software Engineering Institute (SEI) capability maturity model for systems engineering

CMMI v1.1 SE/SW – This is the latest CMU/SEI capability maturity model that integrates systems engineering and software engineering

FAA-iCMM, v2.0 – FAA’s own CMMI-based model

21-Jan-03 Assessment Model EvaluationEvaluation by: XXXXXXXX

Criteria Value ISO 15504 EIA/IS 731 SE-CMM CMMI v1.1 SE/SW FAA-iCMM v 2.01.0 Compatibility with ISO9001-2000

1.1 Covers some but not all process elements

3

1.2 Existing ISO procedures are adaptable to the model

6

1.3 Covers all process elements of ISO 9001-2000

10

2.0 Availability of outside assessors

2.1 Core group(s) of certif ied assessors exist

3

2.2 Is it feasible to convert to inhouse assessors

6

2.3 Is it practical to use an agency-w ide contract for assessment

10

3.0 Likelihood of long-term 3rd party support

3.1 Organization(s) exist that w ill support

3

3.2 Documentation is suff icient and updated regularly

6

3.3 Product line exists and is stable 10

Assessment Criteria Matrix

4.0 Perceived cost to implement

4.1 Cost data is available from some application

3

4.2 Can share or leverage costs w ith others

6

4.3 Sustaining cost is minimal 10

5.0 Training availability5.1 Several training sources are available

3

5.2 Training is certif ied by issuing organization

6

5.3 Training exists for assessors as w ell as implementers

10

6.0 Acceptability as a national/international model

6.1 Issued by a national/international organization

3

6.2 Evidence of use internationally 6

6.3 Evidence of use nationally 10

7.0 Tailorability 7.1 Perceived ease of tailoring to NASA

3

7.2 Examples of tailoring exist 6

7.3 Guidelines for tailoring exist 10

8.0 History of successful application and availability of lessons learned from those applications

8.1 Documented use by industry 3

8.2 Experience w ith use at NASA 6

8.3 Available Lessons learned are relevant to NASA

10

Total Scores:

Assessment Criteria Matrix (continued)

Summary of Assessment Subgroup Model Evaluations

ISO 15504 EIA/IS 731 SE-CMM CMMI v1.1 SE/SW FAA-iCMM v 2.016 27 39 72 4211 5 24 53 3212 19 44 66 4216 15 0 68 916 9 45 72 15

Averages 14.2 15 30.4 66.2 28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5

System Engineering Working Group Results

For NASA’s purposes CMMI v1.1 SE/SW was evaluated as the best appraisal methodology for systems engineering

Scope of plan is to address pre-assessments only.

Some Concerns with Pre-Assessments

• Cost

• Disrupts some projects with yet another assessment

Perception = Truth

Advantages of Pre-Assessments

• Provides information in response to EMB action item, “What problem are we trying to solve?”

• Multiple reports have indicated SE problems.• Enables establishment of a current NASA-wide baseline for

systems engineering processes• Enables identification of gaps that exist in NASA-wide

systems engineering terminologies, definitions, concepts and processes

• Identifies training deficiencies• Enables justification of the NASA-wide standardization of

processes• Enables content improvement and identifies emphasis areas

for the SE NPR

Implementation Roadmap

Conduct Pre-Assessments

Minor Concerns

Center Conducts Improvements

Major Concerns

Review Results

CapabilityImprovement

ActivityPer CMMI

Center Conducts Self-assessments

Formal AssessmentsPer CMMI

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

NoConcerns

Revisit in 3 – 5 Years

Pilot

Proposed Approach

• One pre-assessment per center.

• Two to three projects assessed per center.

• Four day period for each pre-assessment.

• Three external assessors and two NASA assessors.

• Same five assessors conduct each pre-assessment.

• One center representative participates in their center’s pre-assessment and provides liaison support.

• Code AE contractor to monitor consistency, provide progress reports and complete the integrated final report.

• Use a tailored CMMI-SE as the assessment tool.

Results from a quick-look systems engineering assessment conducted at GSFC during 2002 indicate the value and feasibility of using a tailored CMMI-SE approach

Pilot Objective

Specifically answers to the following questions were sought: Will a CMMI based pre-assessment provide the desired

baseline information? How much effort is required for PIID preparation? What were the major issues encountered? How were the encountered issues resolved? Was the initial PIID training received sufficient? What is the impact on the projects that participated in discovery

activities? Was the level of CMMI practices selected (level 3) appropriate? Are the CMMI model and the approaches used by pilot

recommended for the conduct of pre-assessments at other selected NASA Centers?

Proposed Tailoring of CMMI (Assess against a Subset of the Process Areas)

• Engineering Process Areas (6 of 6)– Requirements Development– Technical Solutions– Product Integration– Verification– Validation– Requirements Management

• Project Management Process Areas (3 of 8)– Engineering Planning– Engineering Monitoring and Control– Engineering Risk management

• Support Process Areas (3 of 6)– Engineering Measurement and Analysis– Engineering Configuration Management– Engineering Decision Analysis and Resolution

• Process Management Process Areas (1 of 5)– Organizational Training (for Engineering)

Pilot Quick Look

There is a need for upfront planning in sufficient time before pre-assessment go-ahead to identify and make available the right people as PIID preparation team members and for obtaining the appropriate training courses for key project personnel and PIID team members.

There is a need for PIID team members to have a good understanding of generic practices and how they are used in conjunction with specific practices to complete PIID preparation.

There is a desire for a single library in which project documentation and other materials are captured and made available to PIID preparation team members.

There is a need for more time during initial training to give PIID preparers more exposure to and hands on experience with using the CMMI model.








engineering




level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce


Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility

NASA Implementing Strategies

*Derived from the NASA FY2003 Strategic Plan, p. A-3

IS-3. Enhance NASA’s core engineering, management, and scientific capabilities and processes to ensure safety and mission success, increase performance, and reduce cost.

Implement collaborative engineering

capabilities and integrated design

solutions to reduce the life-cycle cost

and technical, cost, and schedule risk of major programs

Apply methods and technologies to ensure that designs are safe

and have a high likelihood for success

Improve our systems engineering

capability and ensure that all NASA

programs follow systems engineering

best practices throughout their life

cycles

Establish a process management

approach that can be tailored to the needs of all projects and programs based on

safety, scope, complexity, cost, and

acceptable risk

Use peer review to ensure that NASA’s scientific research is of the highest quality

Vision

Mission

Agency GoalsWhat we will achieveWhat we will achieve

ThemesOur structure to implement the GoalsOur structure to implement the Goals

ObjectivesHow we will achieve the GoalsHow we will achieve the Goals

Implementing StrategiesA foundation of sound planning and management

practices

Advanced Engineering EnvironmentsAdvanced Engineering Environments

Executive Summary

Agency AEE VISIONProvide a collaborative, integrated environment to enable distributed, consistent

and informed engineering, science and management decision-making processes across the Agency

Definition of AEEA connected set of methods and tools supporting Systems Engineering, analysis, Product Data Management, collaboration, simulation and modeling

which enable such concepts as Simulation Based Acquisition

Overarching Vision

One NASA community using a strategic engineering capability to enable sustained processes, products and mission success

We Must Invest in Our Infrastructure’s Human, Model, and Data Environments to Enable our Future Programs

We Must Invest in Our Infrastructure’s Human, Model, and Data Environments to Enable our Future Programs

AEE Enables

Better development Optimize development, acquisition, and operations business

processes Minimize the time required to translate an operational

requirement into a validated and verified operational capability and a deployed mission system

Understand and anticipate User needs and translate those needs into product specifications that meet operational requirements

Infrastructure necessary to provide cost effective mission systems early in the lifecycle phase

Predict system behavior (cost, performance, schedule, risk) Support deterministic analysis Facilitate/enable integrated and probabilistic analysis of the

system designs in a traceable manner Anticipate total system operation prior to deployment

Strategy for AEE Implementation

Develop and deploy a NASA-wide AEE capability to continuously improve our engineering community, processes, and capabilities Establish a OneNASA strategy on AEE activities across the

agency Establish a structure for AEE capabilities within NASA and with

external partners in other agencies and institutions Provide the Agency’s focus for connecting, leveraging and

deploying existing and emerging tools and capabilities Establish protocols to add and evaluate capabilities within the

NASA AEE structure

Strategy for AEE Implementation (cont.)

Create and deploy a comprehensive NASA-wide portfolio of state-of-the-art engineering tools and capabilities Aligned with user needs and requirements Leverage existing tools and capabilities Develop and/or integrate capabilities which fill the gaps

Strategy is User/Project driven Access to the AEE portfolio for effective sharing of tools and

knowledge across NASA and beyond Systematic means to ensure widespread knowledge and use

of the portfolio Mechanisms to ensure easy access to all portfolio capabilities

Agency’s Engineering Infrastructure Challenge Is to Ensure Our Workforce Has the Tools & Capabilities to Achieve NASA’s

Vision/Mission to Secure Our Future

Agency’s Engineering Infrastructure Challenge Is to Ensure Our Workforce Has the Tools & Capabilities to Achieve NASA’s

Vision/Mission to Secure Our Future

What Are the Challenges?

Today, NASA Centers do not have the resources or infrastructure to adequately maintain the state-of-the-art in Engineering practices Little room for investments to advance our state-of-the-art.

Future engineering adaptations such as Collaboration and Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA) require fundamental upgrades

We must continually improve our ability to perform engineering work to implement the Enterprises’ programs & initiatives Significant technological challenges

NASA’s role is to be a leader- advancing state-of-the-art Our future depends upon it NASA is behind the State-of-Practice

AEE Analogs Outside of NASA

OSD IDE Summary

• The digital environment is here to stay• The extent to which is interoperable will determine its

ultimate effectiveness• The way we communicate data requirements will

determine the achievable levels of interoperability• Numerous efforts underway to harness the power of

standards for commercial data / meta-data / data interface– CIDS– Pilots (Multiview, LEAPS)– Trading Partner Agreement

• OSD IDE WG working to develop OSD policy related to standards and their role in the defense enterprise IDE

10/2/2002 1

Integrated Shipbuilding Environment

Ronald Wood, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems

L ML M -- I E PI E PP r o j e c t O v e r v i e wP r o j e c t O v e r v i e wO c t o b e r 2 0 0 2O c t o b e r 2 0 0 2

Corporate Intra-Collaboration

AF Joint Synthesis Battlespace

JSF

Future Combat System

Chrysler Intrepid

ASN (RDA)CHIEF ENGINEER

ASN (RDA)CHIEF ENGINEER

Naval Collaborative Engineering Environment Overview

Naval Collaborative Engineering Environment Overview

Outline

Background NIAT


DoD Industry

Summary

DOD Systems Engineering

Revitalization

USD(AT&L) Imperatives

“Provide a context within which I can make decisions about individual programs.”

“Achieve credibility and effectiveness in the acquisition and logistics support processes.”

“Help drive good systems engineering practice back into the way we do business.”

SE Revitalization Drivers

Lack of coherent SE policy

Lack of effective SE implementation - no “forcing function” for PM or contractor SE activities

Program teams incentivized by cost and schedule, not execution of disciplined SE

Products and processes not in balance (emphasis on speed; fix it in the next spiral)

Inconsistent focus across life-cycle, particularly prior to Milestone B

SE inadequately considered in program life cycle decisions

No single definition or agreement on the scope of SE Lack of common understanding of how SE is implemented on

programs Is SE done by the systems engineer? Does the systems engineer lead the SE effort?

No uniform understanding of what makes a good systems engineer No consistent set of metrics/measures to quantify the value of SE Cost and schedule estimation and risk management processes

inconsistently aligned with SE processes

SE Revitalization Drivers(cont’d)

System Complexity – A Major SE Challenge

System complexity is ever increasing – Family of Systems/System of Systems interdependencies

Integrated systems vice platforms Network centric, spiral development, extension

of system applications are driving higher levels of integration

Task is made more difficult because multiple practitioner communities not aligned Hardware, Software, Information Systems

Validation

SE Education and Training Summit Industry feedback

NDIA, GEIA, AIA Component initiatives Assessment results

DoD Service GAO

DoD Acquisition Policy

DoDD 5000.1:

“Acquisition programs shall be managed through the application of a systems engineering approach that optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs. A modular, open-systems approach shall be employed.”

DoD SE Revitalization : Relationship

Policy & Guidance• Policy Memo• 5000.2 Enclosure• Acq Guidebook

Assessment• Assessment Guide• Pilot Programs• Team Training

Training & Education• SPRDE Courses• Allied Courses• CL and Short Courses

Memo: Policy for Systems Engrg in DoD

• All programs, regardless of ACAT shall • Apply an SE approach

• Develop a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)• Describe technical approach, including processes, resources, and metrics• Detail timing and conduct of SE technical reviews

• Director, DS tasked to• Provide SEP guidance for DODI 5000.2

• Recommend changes in Defense SE

• Establish a senior-level SE forum

• Assess SEP and program readiness to proceed before each DAB and other USD(AT&L)-led acquisition reviews

PolicyDODI 5000.2 E 10, “Systems Engineering”

• SE in each acquisition phase• SE strategy integrated with other program strategies (Acquisition, T&E, etc.)• SE leadership• SE planning• Technical reviews

• Integrated (program team and subject matter experts)

• Event driven• Independent, technical chair

• In-service SE

GuidanceDoD Acquisition Guidebook

• DoD Acquisition Guide (formerly DoD 5000.2-R)

• Best practice for “applied SE”• SE guide for each acquisition phase• Technical reviews as basis for program decisions• Linkage of SE products/process to acquisition

objectives• Tailorable

Education and Training

• Review SPRDE Career Field• Position Category Descriptions• Certification requirements• Course elements and content (including terminal learning objectives)• Continuous learning courses

• Develop focused continuous learning and short courses, emphasizing latest SE policies

• Review and assess associated acquisition career fields versus SE revitalization thrusts:

ACQ, PM, LOG, BCEFM, CONT, SAM, T&E, PQM, STM, IT

• Review Academic Curriculums

• Universities, NDU

Assessments and Support

• Develop comprehensive, phased assessment methodology

• Provide in-depth training to assessment teams• Apply methodology to pilot programs and recoup

lessons learned

ARMY

Presented By: Jeff DyerUS Army RDECOM ARDECSystem Engineering, Integration and Analysis Director

ARDEC SE Initiative

ARDEC Re-organization: A main pillar - “built around ensuring System Engineering principles are embedded in the conduct of all ARDEC programs” – ARDEC TD Process Oriented

SEIA Organization: Mission: The Systems Engineering, Integration and Analysis

Competency Directorate will develop and continuously improve the Systems Engineering, System Integration and System Analysis competency areas for ARDEC and will execute these tasks for all ARDEC programs.

Vision: Develop and implement a systematic and disciplined system engineering process, with emphasis on Simulation and Modeling for Acquisition, Requirements and Training (SMART) principals, for the development of ARDEC personnel and products.

USAF Systems Engineering Update

Mr. Mike UcchinoTechnical Director

AF Center for Systems Engineering22 March 04

AFIT Organization

Communications& Info Services

Major Trautmann

Civil Engineer & Services School

Dean-Col Astin

Systems EngineeringSenior Council

AFIT CommandantBrig Gen (Sel) Eidsaune

Air Univ CommanderLt Gen Lamontagne

Center for Systems Engineering

Interim Director -Mr. Wilson

SE Ed & Training

School of Systemsand Logistics

Dean-Col Knapp

AETC CommanderGen Cook

AU Board of VisitorsAFIT SE Subcommittee

AFMC AFSPC

AdvocacyCollaborationConsultation

-

AFIT CommandantBrig Gen (Sel) Eidsaune

Air Univ CommanderLt Gen Lamontagne

Center for Systems Engineering

Director - Mr. Wilson

SE Ed & Training

School of Systemsand Logistics

Dean-Col Knapp Acting - Dr Calico

AETC CommanderGen Cook

AU Board of VisitorsAFIT SE Subcommittee

AFMC AFSPC

AdvocacyCollaborationConsultation

- New Reorganization

Provost

CSE Perspective

Systems Engineering is the umbrella process Applies across the entire life cycle Other engineering disciplines support the process

Chief / Lead Engineers are the Systems Engineers on programs Requires technical as well as process knowledge / experience Matrixed organizations can have functional (home office) systems

engineer

All engineers should apply/use systems engineering principles and processes

Systems engineering process defined by “world’s greatest PAT” Driven by formation of AFMC Basis for MIL-STD-499B

CSE Goals

Influence and institutionalize systems engineering process Process, practices, and tools

Collaboration with government, industry and academia Consultation Rotational program

Educate the workforce Academic programs

Graduate programs – MS, PhD, and certificate Seminars, workshops, short courses (continuing education) Provide accessibility at key DoD locations

Case studies

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AT

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

GEIA

09 SEPTEMBER 2003

Systems Engineering

at NAVAIR

PEOPLE

• Leadership

• Knowledge Management

• Training

• Certification/ Empowerment

• Subject Matter Expertise

PROCESSES

• SEMP

• Technical/Design Reviews

• Risk Assessment

• Verification & Validation

• Strategic Development

TOOLS

• Requirements Management

• Systems Integration

• Laboratories

• Modeling / Simulation

PROGRAMS

• Acquisition Plan

• Contract Work Statement

• Specifications

• Resources

• Facilities

“Systems Engineering is the overarching, ‘integrated sum’ of people, processes, tools, and programs which ensures validated satisfaction of program requirements from design and operations, through training and support.”

Effective and Suitable Fielded System

A Total System’s Approach

NAVAIR S.E. GUIDE

NAVAIR Systems

Engineering Guide

Covered Covered Explicitly Explicitly

by the Mil-by the Mil-Std 499BStd 499B

Adapted from ASI/EIA-632

EIA-632/MIL STD 499B

Acquisition and Supply Supply Process Acquisition Process

Technical Management Planning Process Assessment Process Control ProcessControl Process

System Design Requirements Definition ProcessRequirements Definition Process Solution Definition ProcessSolution Definition Process

Product Realization Implementation Process Transition to Use Process

Technical Evaluation Systems Analysis ProcessSystems Analysis Process Requirements Validation Process System Verification Process End Products Validation Process

NAVAIR SE GUIDEFOUNDATION FOR FUTURE GOVERNMENT / INDUSTRY PROCESS

• INCOSE/NDIA/GEIA

– ADOPTED THE S.E. GUIDE AS A FOUNDATION DOCUMENT FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

– PROVIDED COPIES OF THE S.E. GUIDE TO ALL MAJOR AIRCRAFT COMPANIES FOR COMMENT

• Navy’s System Engineering Stakeholders Group (SESG)

– BASELINE DOCUMENT FOR THE NAVY’S VIRTUAL SYSTEMS COMMAND S.E. GUIDE

– PLAN TO COMPLETE FEB 04

Outline

Background NIAT


DoD Industry

Summary



Functional Analysis

Functional Analysis

4+1 Views for each System Design Level are Populated with SoSE Process Products

4+1 Views are incrementally developed across the SoSE Activities

Requirements Definition

Functional Architecture

Physical Architecture

SoS Process DerivedSystem Element Needs

SoS Process DerivedSystem Element NeedsStakeholder Needs

Derived Item Requirements for theNext Level of Decomposition

SynthesisSynthesis

Architecture Models and Specificationsfor each Design Level

Use Case View, Logical View, Process View

Use Case View, Logical View, Process View

Use Case View, Logical View, Physical View

ProcessProducts

ProcessProducts

ProcessProducts



LM-IEPLM-IEPA Progress Report A Progress Report 9 September 2003 9 September 2003

LM-IEP A Product Suite Approach

LM Process LM Process Asset LibraryAsset Library

(LM-PAL)(LM-PAL)

LM Process LM Process Asset LibraryAsset Library

(LM-PAL)(LM-PAL)

Common Common Methods and Methods and

Work ProductsWork Products

Common Common Methods and Methods and

Work ProductsWork Products

Assessment Assessment Method (CAM)Method (CAM)

Assessment Assessment Method (CAM)Method (CAM)

LM-IEPLM-IEPStandard Standard

LM-IEPLM-IEPStandard Standard

Integrated Integrated Measurement & Measurement &

Risk ManagementRisk Management

Integrated Integrated Measurement & Measurement &

Risk ManagementRisk Management

TrainingTrainingTrainingTraining

ARISARISProcessProcessModelModel

ARISARISProcessProcessModelModel

Integrated Process Improvement

LM-IEPLM-IEPStandardStandard

CMMI Level 3+CMMI Level 3+AppraisalAppraisal

IntegratedIntegratedMeasurementMeasurement

GuideGuide

RiskRiskMeasurementMeasurement

GuideGuide

Common Source Standards

ANSI/EIA-632ANSI/EIA-632

ISO 9001:2000ISO 9001:2000

IEEE 1220IEEE 1220

LM–HWLCPSLM–HWLCPS

ISO/IEC-12207ISO/IEC-12207

CMMI V1.1CMMI V1.1

ISO/IEC-15288ISO/IEC-15288

ProjectProjectDefinedDefinedProcessProcess



LM Business Units

Other BestOther BestPracticesPractices

LM-PALLM-PAL

IntegratedIntegratedMethodsMethods

OrganizationalOrganizationalStandard Standard

Process(es)Process(es)

Industry Associations

NDIA Top 5 Lack of awareness of the importance and value …..SE on programs

ROI SE should not be an option.

Adequate, qualified resources… Short supply of experienced and trained workforce.

Insufficient SE tools and environments to effectively execute SE on programs. Lack comprehensive, common and consistent tools, guidance and

standards which leads to stovepipes and inadequate data transfer. Requirements definition, development and mangement is not applied

consistently and effectively. Poor initial program formulation practices put success at risk

Emphasize SE process in the initial stages Adoption of maturity models such as CMMI

Heritage of SE and SW Standards

EIA/IS-632

1980

Instructions/Handbooks/

Manuals/Guides

IEEE 12201994

DIDs

ANSI/EIA-632

ISO/IEC15288

IEEE/EIA12207

EIA/IS-731

EIA/IEEEJ-STD-016

IEEE 12201998

MIL-STD-499A

MIL-STD-499

SystemsEngineering

ISO/IEC12207

MIL-STD-498

DOD-STD-2167

DOD-STD-2167A

DOD-STD-1703

DOD-STD-7935A

IEEE 1498/EIA 640

DIDs

MIL-STD-1679A

1985

1998 1994

1998 1994

1974 1969

1999-2002

1999

Oct 2002

1994

1987

1988

1988

1994 1996

1995 1998

1997

2002+

(Interim)(Draft)

(Trial Use)

(Interim)

(Full Std)

(NotReleased)

Sec PerryLetterJan 1994

SoftwareEngineering

1968-

Data Item Descriptions

MIL-Std-499B

ISO/IEC1528812207

Harmon

200X

MIL-STD-1679

1968-

Guide

Mid-2003

(Data)

CMMI(SE-CM)

Summary

SE Revitalization : Relationship

Policy &Guidance

• Policy Memo• 5000.2 Enclosure• Acq Guidebook

Assessment• Assessment Guide• Pilot Programs• Team Training

Training &Education

• SPRDE Courses• Allied Courses• CL and Short

Courses

Systems Engineering

at NAVAIR

PEOPLE

• Leadership

• Knowledge Management

• Training

• Certification/ Empowerment

• Subject Matter Expertise

PROCESSES

• SEMP

• Technical/Design Reviews

• Risk Assessment

• Verification & Validation

• Strategic Development

TOOLS

• Requirements Management

• Systems Integration

• Laboratories

• Modeling / Simulation

PROGRAMS

• Acquisition Plan

• Contract Work Statement

• Specifications

• Resources

• Facilities

“Systems Engineering is the overarching, ‘integrated sum’of people, processes, tools, and programs which ensures validated satisfaction of program requirements from design and operations, through training and support.”

Effective and Suitable Fielded System

A Total System’s Approach

Heritage of SE and SW Standards

EIA/IS-632

1980

Instructions/Handbooks/

Manuals/Guides

IEEE 12201994

DIDs

ANSI/EIA-632

ISO/IEC15288

IEEE/EIA12207

EIA/IS-731

EIA/IEEEJ-STD-016

IEEE 12201998

MIL-STD-499A

MIL-STD-499

SystemsEngineering

ISO/IEC12207

MIL-STD-498

DOD-STD-2167

DOD-STD-2167A

DOD-STD-1703

DOD-STD-7935A

IEEE 1498/EIA 640

DIDs

MIL-STD-1679A

1985

1998 1994

1998 1994

1974 1969

1999-2002

1999

Oct 2002

1994

1987

1988

1988

1994 1996

1995 1998

1997

2002+

(Interim)(Draft)

(Trial Use)

(Interim)

(Full Std)

(NotReleased)

Sec PerryLetterJan 1994

SoftwareEngineering

1968-

Data Item Descriptions

MIL-Std-499B

ISO/IEC1528812207

Harmon

200X

MIL-STD-1679

1968-

Guide

Mid-2003

(Data)

CMMI(SE-CM)


Systems Experienced, well trained engineers

in application of concepts, process, tools, methodology, and customer relation/interaction

Consistency in systems engineering





engineering




level

Knowledge& Skill of

Workforce


Tools &Methodology

Capab

ility

Capab

ility

Questions?

BACKUP

IEEE 1220 Application & Management of the SE Process

Lev

el o

f D

etai

l

Breadth of Scope

ScopeSE Related Standards

ISO/IEC 15288System Life Cycle Processes

Envisioned NASA NPGEnvisioned NASA NPG

MIL-STD-499B & EIA IS 632Systems Engineering

ANSI/EIA 632 Processes for Engineering a System

Lockheed Martin EIP – includes SW engineering

Mil-Std-499B

1994

(Not Released)

Mil-Std-499

1969

Gov’t

Mil-Std-499A

1974

ISO- 15288

2002

International

EIA/IS 632

CMMI®ANSI/ EIA- 632

(Updates)

IEEE Trial Use Std-

1220

(Updates)

IEEE Std 1220

ANSI/EIA-632-1998

EIA/IS-731 SE Capability

IEEE Std 1220-1998

1994

20022004+

1994

2004+

1999 1999 1999

INCOSE SECAM

EPIC SE-CMM

1994

Commercial

EIA-731 SE Capability

2002

Heritage of Systems Engineering Standards

Slide courtesy of Richard HarwellINCOSE Fellow

systems engineering 6 april 2004 sj kapurch peo systems engineering code d oce hq

Documents

systems engineering

engineering workforce

engineering practice

nasas core engineering

systems engineering6

nasa programs

success of nasa

glenn research center